Braunstein (Steve) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Braunstein (Steve) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court·Decided January 20, 2022·No. 83949·Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

STEVEN SAMUEL BRAUNSTEIN, No. 83949 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 0 COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, fe i i ff D IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF s CLARK, «JAN 20 2022 Respondent, ite

and eee THE STATE OF NEVADA, DEPUTY Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenges petitioner’s conviction for possession of stolen property on the ground that due to a clerical error, he was convicted of a category D felony although the value of the stolen property supported only a misdemeanor conviction. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (noting that writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted).

Any application for such relief should be made to, and resolved by, the district court in the first instance so that factual and legal issues are fully developed, giving this court an adequate record to review. See Round Hull Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that “an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which

to resolve disputed questions of fact”); Zobrist v. Sheriff, 96 Nev. 625, 626,

Supreme Court OF NEVADA

(0) ITA EE anna

614 P.2d 538, 539 (1980) (observing that writ petitions raising questions of fact should be considered “by a tribunal equipped to handle that task”); State v. Cty. of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) (noting that “this court prefers that such an application [for writ relief] be addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district court” in the first instance), abrogated on other grounds by Attorney Gen. v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

- Pee 3 eee re wehbe — eo re Parraguirre

Je sOecl, va. A2, Cou? JJ.

Hardesty Stiglich

cc: Steven Samuel Braunstein Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

Supreme Covar OF NEVADA

(0) 197A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

STEVEN SAMUEL BRAUNSTEIN, No. 83949 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 0 COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, fe i i ff D IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF s CLARK, «JAN 20 2022 Respondent, ite

and eee THE STATE OF NEVADA, DEPUTY Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenges petitioner’s conviction for possession of stolen property on the ground that due to a clerical error, he was convicted of a category D felony although the value of the stolen property supported only a misdemeanor conviction. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (noting that writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted).

Any application for such relief should be made to, and resolved by, the district court in the first instance so that factual and legal issues are fully developed, giving this court an adequate record to review. See Round Hull Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that “an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which

to resolve disputed questions of fact”); Zobrist v. Sheriff, 96 Nev. 625, 626,

Supreme Court OF NEVADA

(0) ITA EE anna

614 P.2d 538, 539 (1980) (observing that writ petitions raising questions of fact should be considered “by a tribunal equipped to handle that task”); State v. Cty. of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) (noting that “this court prefers that such an application [for writ relief] be addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district court” in the first instance), abrogated on other grounds by Attorney Gen. v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

- Pee 3 eee re wehbe — eo re Parraguirre

Je sOecl, va. A2, Cou? JJ.

Hardesty Stiglich

cc: Steven Samuel Braunstein Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

Supreme Covar OF NEVADA

(0) 197A

Braunstein (Steve) v. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2022).

Pincite

Braunstein (Steve) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Braunstein (Steve) v. Dist. Ct. (State)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related